Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Darren DeNunzio who wrote (3783)	5/19/1999 10:23:00 AM
From: WTC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Darren, You provided a useful update on the interest in and some parameters of wireless cable. Just a couple of comments: <Just like wired cable, a 6 MHz wireless television channel can support 27 Mbps of downstream data throughput using cable modems with 64 QAM (quadrature amplitude modulation) technology. Historically, a telephone-return path has been used for upstream communication, but operators are now transitioning to full two-way wireless delivery.> Historically true. QAM64 with its line of sight requirements (~26dB C/I requirement in the totality of the point-multipoint 2.5GHz system link budget actually is what produces the LOS requirement) is problematic into foliated residential areas. That has spawned some interesting CDMA cellularized approaches that require a substantially lower C/I. It remains to be seen if this approach overcomes the LOS requirement with a useful level of success. The 2.5GHz signals don't burn through trees any better when you change the modulation, but the demands for recovering the signal are much reduced. BTW, note that cellularization, by itself, is no solution to the LOS problem. Just think about it -- if you need LOS in one specific direction from the customer location, and it is obstructed, it does not matter that the downstream signal is from a low power cellularized transmitter rather than a single metropolitan transmitter. In fact, the cellularized transmitters are probably at a lower elevation than the single metro transmitters, which could exacerbate the LOS problems (but not much in reality -- the height of a metro MMDS transmitter still gives elevations at subscribers that are too low to clear most trees.) The words about WCS are correct, but the industry has not and probably will not ever consider WCS spectrum blocks to be a part of wireless cable spectrum, as in the table below. It simply will rarely be used in this way, the Bell South WCS spectrum swap notwithstanding. >2.150 - 2.162 GHz MDS 2 6 MHz >2.305 - 2.320 GHz WCS 2 5 & 10 MHz >2.345 - 2.360 GHz WCS 2 5 & 10 MHz >2.500 - 2.596 GHz ITFS 16 6 MHz >2.596 - 2.644 GHz MMDS 8 6 MHz >2.644 - 2.686 GHz ITFS 4 6 MHz 2.686 - 2.689 GHz MMDS 31 125 KHz >In the U.S., traditional wireless cable system operators have >aggregated available MDS, MMDS and ITFS spectrum in a given market, >providing up to 200 MHz of bandwidth, the equivalent of 33 analog 6 >MHz television channels. This is nearly true, but it implies a situation that is far from true. In the top 50 markets, there are indeed 33 channels between the MDS, MMDS, and ITFS allocations. It is relatively rare for a system operator to have aggregated all of these "available" channels. Some are not really available, e.g., ITFS channels in use by an educational institution, but some are, the operator just could not get to lease terms with spectrum owner, perhaps the proverbial "doctor and dentist" who got his name into the lottery back in 1983-84. Many rural systems operate with 12-16 channels; big city systems generally operate with 25 channels or more, but rarely more than 30 - 31. The IXCs that just "discovered" MDS spectrum presumably have done their homework and already understand the challenges they will face in deploying a widely available high speed data service in residential communities. Personally, based on recent associations with some of their business development and engineering staff, I don't presume anything anymore. Maybe this is not a residential play at all, apart from serving urban MDUs. Time and technology developments will tell.

To: Darren DeNunzio who wrote (3783)	5/19/1999 2:40:00 PM
From: mark qualey	Respond to of 12823

MOTOROLA AND FIRST FLORIDA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM UP TO TARGET 'LAST MILE'(FFCI)

To: Darren DeNunzio who wrote (3783)	5/19/1999 6:06:00 PM
From: SAM-DAN	Respond to of 12823

Gentlemen, we were directed to your site as a company WLGS in which we have invested is developing a system called VDMA.We hope you have heard of it and could give us your opinion of its possible successful implimentation.One of our sources says that the VDMA eliminates the problems associated with"the last mile" and eliminates any two-way wireless problems that are associated with all other systems.[one reason given was that the signals are not dircted from a fixed transmiter antenna or receiver but from the phone[if that word applies] itself which has the VDMA chip in it and has a radius of at least 20 miles to an assumed multiple of phones in the area.We assume that long distance transmissions would be from fixed locations but direct line of sight would be much easier as the signal would come from any units[phones ]with the VDMA chip in the vicinity which does not rely on line of site.Futuristic or posssible? Have any of you heard or investigated this technology.Please post and if necessary we will attempt to link you with someone with the technical knowledge about VDMA.Thank you